All the above points are minor in themselves. But together the shaky science, overconfidence and lazy storytelling add up to something substantial.
I disagree. I admit that Ariely and Kahneman may exaggerate or bend reality when they talk about the final results they found. So did the famous “robbers cave experiment” so did Mendel and his Pea counting.
The important part is that when you strip back the over-the-top rhetoric you still have a truthful valid point. Mendelian genetics and his punnet square tools are still used today. Even if he had to lie for the scientists at the time to take him seriously and accept the Submissions of his theory.
Ariely’s work on encouraging/discouraging cheating. Generally “it can be done” and “you should be careful to understand the system in which cheating occurs”. (most of: analyse the incentives to do the right/wrong thing)
Kahnemann on s1/s2 on which many following concepts are built.
I disagree. I admit that Ariely and Kahneman may exaggerate or bend reality when they talk about the final results they found. So did the famous “robbers cave experiment” so did Mendel and his Pea counting.
The important part is that when you strip back the over-the-top rhetoric you still have a truthful valid point. Mendelian genetics and his punnet square tools are still used today. Even if he had to lie for the scientists at the time to take him seriously and accept the Submissions of his theory.
What truthful valid point? System 1 / 2 distinction?
Ariely’s work on encouraging/discouraging cheating. Generally “it can be done” and “you should be careful to understand the system in which cheating occurs”. (most of: analyse the incentives to do the right/wrong thing)
Kahnemann on s1/s2 on which many following concepts are built.